±¬ÁÏÍø

If all candidates are treated in the same manner, there is no discrimination. The candidates for the job opening were treated equally with regard to the notice given to scheduling of interviews and taking of the written assessment. This may not have been ideal and represents poor managerial practice, but without evidence in support of any ulterior motive or how the failure to give the five working days¡¯ notice prejudiced the Applicant, the Tribunal does not find that this failure amounted to discrimination per se (see Lennard ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/044, at paras. 34 to 37). The definition of an ¡°assessment...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and contested a decision that was taken by that agency. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor did the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. He therefore had no locus standi to challenge a decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA before the Tribunal.

Receivability; The application is receivable ratione personae. After accepting the offer of employment, the Applicant effectively started to perform the functions of Senior Economic Affairs; Officer, ECE, on 1 May 2017. The Organization thus treated him like a staff member, although he was not eligible to apply and be selected for the position and no letter of appointment was signed. As a result, the Applicant is legitimately entitled to rights similar to those afforded to staff members, for the purpose of being granted access to the internal justice system of the United Nations.; Merits; The...

Merits: The evaluation criteria in the comparative review matrix on record, against which the suitability of job candidates was appraised, did not correspond to the mandatory and desirable/advantageous qualifications, and in light of these anomalies alone, the Respondent failed to minimally demonstrate that the Applicant received full and fair consideration. Considering that the documents on record do not include any specific analysis with supporting documentation as to how the selected male candidate¡¯s qualifications were clearly superior vis-¨¤-vis the Applicant, the Applicant has proved...

The Organization¡¯s failure to state fully the selection criteria in the GJO constitutes a procedural error in violation of ST/AI/2010/3. The procedural error in the recruitment process did not impact the Applicant¡¯s right to be fully and fairly considered. Her application was fully and fairly reviewed by the hiring manager and it was within the reasonable discretion of the Organization to find that the Applicant¡¯s experience fell short of the minimum criteria.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that a staff member has a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives like bias or discrimination. A candidate has no right to a promotion. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that ¡®Priority consideration¡¯ cannot be interpreted as a promise or guarantee to be appointed or receive what one is considered in priority for and that to hold otherwise would compromise the highest standards of efficiency, competency, and integrity required in selecting the best candidate for staff positions under Article 101 of the Charter. The Tribunal...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s right to a full and fair consideration of his candidature was not violated. It was thus held that the Applicant¡¯s allegation that the selection process was tainted by extraneous considerations, ill-motive and bias not borne out in evidence. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that there was no breach of the applicable procedures in the selection process. The Administration acted in accordance with the ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL guidelines for the selection of staff members. The Applicant was clearly given a full and fair consideration as demonstrated by the fact that she advanced through the process until the final stage. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

With regard to GJO No. 425940, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified on 19 February 2014 that his application had been unsuccessful. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision until over four years later. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim relating to GJO No. 425940 was not receivable ratione materiae and it was dismissed. For GJO No. 76109, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that the Administration did not give his candidacy fair and adequate...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity and proved with clear and convincing evidence that his non-selection was based on improper motive.